Subject: RE: Reminder: Deadline for input on sub-ip discussion

From: "Natale, Robert C (Bob)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 18:32:33 -0500

Hi,

My personal assessment is in favor of

  "1/ Move WGs (back) to permanent areas and close the area"

...primarily because I think that both the general IETF work (as
represented by the WGs in the permanent Areas) *and* the work of
the transplanted SUB-IP WGs would benefit...and those gains would
help us collectively satisfy the marketplace need for us to work
in reasonable concert with the OIF, ITU-T, and other relevant
industry bodies on the subject set of technologies.  I think that
making this transition as quickly as possible will yield maximum
benefits...putting if off is just a waste of time, IMHO.  I would
consider this a successful conclusion to the SUB-IP Area temporary
assignment.  As this would lessen the workload on the ADs involved
and not negatively impact the WGs concerned, it seems like a win-win
to me.

I also agree with the candidate rationale offered in the solicitation
message, with the exception that if the GSMP WG continues then I
feel that it would better fit in the OPS area (with CCAMP and MPLS
in RTG and PPVPN in TSV):

  "Each WG within SUB-IP definitely has a strong feature that maps
   it to a given permanent area [1]. The property that logically
   holds them together in SUB-IP now is the need for coordination
   wrt the technologies that are normally considered below the IP
   layer. While this was indeed necessary right after SUB-IP creation,
   DP4 suggests that the goal has been achieved and the focus is
   shifting back to coordination with permanent areas (e.g., DP3,
   as well as the fact that RTG WGs are already dealing with SUB-IP
   related extensions)."

Cheers,

BobN

---

From: John Drake <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 06:33:47 -0800

3 is my  first preference and 2 is my second preference

Thanks,

John

-----Original Message-----
From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 2:40 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: FW: Reminder: Deadline for input on sub-ip discussion

Forwarded from IETF mailing list

Thanks,
Bert

-----Original Message-----
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: maandag 9 december 2002 22:22
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Reminder: Deadline for input on sub-ip discussion

All,

On Wed Dec 4th, we asked for input to help us decide on the future of
the SUB-IP Area. See our posting at

      http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg18370.html

We had a large majority of people at the SUBIP Area meeting in Atlanta
expressing that they want the area to be long(er) lived. This will be part
of our input.

But we need/want to hear from the IETF community. So please express
your opionion (and the reasoning behind it) asap on [email-masked], but
certainly before Thursday Dec 12th 10am US Eastern time.

As expressed in the above posting (with data points and discussion
included),
the 3 choices for the SUB-IP Area seem to be:

  1/ move WGs (back) to permanent areas: migrate the SUB-IP
     working groups to other IETF areas sometime soon, likely before next
     summer and close the SUB-IP area. Also, reconstitute the SUB-IP (and/or
     other) directorates to ensure the continued coordination between the
     remaining WGs.

  2/ establish a long-term area: decide that the SUB-IP
     area will be a long-term one, clearly define its charter, and ask the
     nomcom to select one or two people to be Area Directors

  3/ status quo: continue the SUB-IP Area as a temporary,
     ad-hoc effort, much as it has been, with the IESG selecting two sitting
     ADs to continue the effort that Bert & Scott have been doing. But maybe
     give more responsibility to the working group's technical advisors,
     normally the AD from the area where the working group might otherwise
     live.

The opinions expressed so far seem to show clearly that the community is
divided on the issue, with perhaps some preference for the status quo
(alternative 3).

If you have a strong preference for one (or two) of these, and have not yet
said so, please indicate your opinion (and your reasons) by mail to
[email-masked] before Thursday.

Thank you!

              Harald Alvestrand, for the IESG

(please repost this message where appropriate)

_______________________________________________
This message was passed through [email-masked], which is
a sublist of [email-masked]. Not all messages are passed. Decisions on what
to pass are made solely by Raffaele D'Albenzio.